Stephen Harpster wrote:
We're wondering if this would increase participation. There are a lot
of GPL bigots out there. If OpenSolaris were available under GPL, would
there be more people willing to participate who have to date ignored us
because we're CDDL only?
Do we really want contributions from "GPL bigots" (your words not mine!)?
I think we need to step back and rehash why the CDDL was created and why
OpenSolaris code that Sun released was put under CDDL in the first place
rather than the GPLv2 or any other existing OSI license.
There were reasons then why GPLv2 wasn't acceptable, exactly what about
the proposed GPLv3 removes those concerns ?
Also, the thinking is that the open source community at large will adopt
GPLv3 and hence a dual-license would make it easier to have OpenSolaris
use that larger body of work. Of course, that presumes that the open
source community accepts GPLv3. If they don't, then dual-license may
not buy us anything.....
Even if "the open source community" (what ever that means, to me it is a
rather meaningless term but lets run with it) accepts GPLv3 they may not
accept a dual licensed GPLv3 / CDDL, part of that might be FUD or not
being able to understand what dual licensing means. The result is still
no gain.
Do we actually have hard evidence that there are contributers or
contributions of code that we are loosing out on because there is code
under CDDL and if that was under some other license we could have them ?
If so give details please. If not this is all speculation and
assumption about the possible behaviour of people outside this community
based on an as yet incomplete license, right ?
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
